Hello Everybody!
*Que crickets*
Well... *Uhrm*
I guess I will just jump right in.
I have a paladin in my party who is playing an archetype that gives up spellcasting and detect evil.
He basically does not have the normal ability of a paladin to detect evil alignment.
The reason this is an issue is that in his party is a NE barbarian.
They are level 6 and second mythic tier. This has not been an issue due to the fact that the reason the barbarian was evil was due to the fact that she had been beaten, burned and stoned out of any place she tried to settle due to her race.
The party got together at level one by qualifying to be "Wardens", basically federal marshals.
All of them were lumped together and told that they were rejects and had only got in on a "Pity Pass".
All of them were odd races. For the barbarian this party is the first time in her very long (100 year+) life that she has ever been accepted.
Now since joining the party the barbarian who originally started with the thought process of "Lock em all up and throw away the key! Club any who resist! Then no on else can kill em!" when told to defend a small hamlet, has actually proven to be a strong resource and a friend to the party. She is most likely going to switch from NE to N at some point. She may even go so far as NG.
At the moment however she is NE, but by her actions the paladin thinks she is some flavor of N or NG.
She did defend some villagers, however mostly because they promised her pie.
My question is this:
1.) If a paladin is adventuring with a character with an Evil alignment, and has no way of knowing either via magic or via actions that said character is evil, will the paladin in question fall/lose powers/get a warning?
I know my answer and how I have been running it but just thought I would ask as I like others viewpoints.
Definitely not, unless the paladin actually sees the party member committing evil acts, and fails to punish them for it, he stands no risk of falling (or even needing a periodic Atonement.)
There is no such thing as "You failed your perception check, you are now an ex-paladin."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When did Barbarians become neutral?
When did Barbarians become neutral?
In the Core Rulebook. The only restriction is that they cannot be lawful.
1.) If a paladin is adventuring with a character with an Evil alignment, and has no way of knowing either via magic or via actions that said character is evil, will the paladin in question fall/lose powers/get a warning?
I'd say "no" to fall or lose powers. "Get a warning" is up to the paladin's deity, but I can't imagine the deity being displeased if the paladin is managing to REDEEM an evil barbarian.
So the "warning" I'd give is probably more along the lines of a "the quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and it will fall. Yet hope still remains while the company remains true." Which has the advantage of being correct, gnomically pretentious, and dramatic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC Pathfinder specifically altered the language regarding paladins working with characters they KNOW to be evil for the greater good.
Honestly, the idea of passing judgement on a person as "evil" if they have committed no evil act is actually rather evil in itself.
But, when in doubt, a GM should try to use alignment in a descriptive way, not a prescriptive way.
If I am not mistaken the paladin description states :
>>>Associates: While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.<<<
I'd think that in this case that discussion can't even be started as the paladin has no way of knowing the evil character is evil (by detection or their actions).
As a GM however I would let the party run in to a cleric (preferably of the same diety as the paladin, if he adheres to a diety) who detect's the party and warns the paladin of the same faith of the evil one who's accompanying him. That would provide a nice roleplaying situation that could allow the party to convert the barbarian to a non-evil alignment.
Lol, you're right. I guess I just never met a non chaotic barbarian. It's just so not barbarianish to pay rent imo. But on topic, you don't fall for things you don't know. If you are not aware there is a cute little halfling girl being tortured you won't fall for not helping her. Because you couldn't have. I think it's the same here. Of course allowing paladins and evil players in the same group is asking for these situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Relevant question: has the barbarian been performing any evil actions, even behind the paladin's back?
Just because her character sheet says "NE" doesn't mean she's actually still NE. She could be true neutral by now if she has done good acts (demonstrating altruism, respect for life, or making personal sacrifices to help others.)
This barbarian doesn't sound evil. Nothing in the character background makes her evil (getting ostracised from communities doesn't make you evil, though your actions in response to such events might), and her behaviour so far is neutral at worst. Talk to your player and ask her why she thinks her barbarian is evil. If she doesn't give a good reply, change her alignment.
Relevant question: has the barbarian been performing any evil actions, even behind the paladin's back?
Just because her character sheet says "NE" doesn't mean she's actually still NE. She could be true neutral by now if she has done good acts (demonstrating altruism, respect for life, or making personal sacrifices to help others.)
She has been helping the party to protect innocents and destroy evil. She also has been becoming good friends with the party hunter, and her AC of course.
The major reasons she has not already alignment shifted is because:
1.) She has chosen not to as she feels the character is not quite there yet.
2.) All of her "Good" acts are spurred by self interest, there is a lot of "What' in it for me?"
In all honesty the most evil act she ever did was when she almost scythed a child to the face when he tugged on her pants to give her pie.
The hunter had to stop her and explain that not all people who touch you are trying to hurt you, and that not everyone is planning on how to kill you, that "No, pie is not some odd form of knife."
The barbarian's Evil alignment is simply from the fact that her entire race is a hated pariah and she has been abused and on the run for over 100 years. She has had to do whatever she had to to survive.
Edit:
To address Madwand's input: She is definitely evil as she has done some "Very Bad Things" to survive this long.
Also unless the actions were egregious I do not shift a players alignment without consulting and getting agreement from said player.
She is getting no mechanical benefit from this and is enjoying the slow climb out of mistrust and an "attack first to survive" attitude, so her alignment will shift when she feels ready.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2.) All of her "Good" acts are spurred by self interest, there is a lot of "What' in it for me?"
That is how a neutral character operates.
She has had to do whatever she had to to survive.
That is also how a neutral character operates.
In all honesty the most evil act she ever did was when she almost scythed a child to the face when he tugged on her pants to give her pie.
The hunter had to stop her and explain that not all people who touch you are trying to hurt you, and that not everyone is planning on how to kill you, that "No, pie is not some odd form of knife."
If she legitimately thought the child was trying to hurt her, that is not an evil act.
The character really sounds true neutral to me. If she was actively trying to hurt people who she knew were innocent, that would merit an evil alignment. But if she just considers everyone to be a threat due to her upbringing, that does not merit an evil alignment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also unless the actions were egregious I do not shift a players alignment without consulting and getting agreement from said player.She is getting no mechanical benefit from this and is enjoying the slow climb out of mistrust and an "attack first to survive" attitude, so her alignment will shift when she feels ready.
This. It's called "roleplaying," and it should be encouraged.
Props to the player for doing this and to Covent for not %^&%&ing up the attempts.
What was talked about Out of Character during Character Creation? Did you, as the GM, openly state that you were OK with a Good (a Paladin of all classes) and an Evil character adventuring with one another?
Yep we all sat down and discussed characters and paladins in particular when the game started. OOC there have been no problems and both paladin and barbarian have been enjoying the subtle tension.
IC, She is beginning to believe that not all "goody two-shoes" are as mean and judgmental as she thought, and he is proud of the fact that she seems to be an abuse survivor that he can help regain her faith in people.
Here is the paladin's archetype btw.
2.) All of her "Good" acts are spurred by self interest, there is a lot of "What' in it for me?"That is how a neutral character operates.
She has had to do whatever she had to to survive.That is also how a neutral character operates.
In all honesty the most evil act she ever did was when she almost scythed a child to the face when he tugged on her pants to give her pie.
The hunter had to stop her and explain that not all people who touch you are trying to hurt you, and that not everyone is planning on how to kill you, that "No, pie is not some odd form of knife."
If she legitimately thought the child was trying to hurt her, that is not an evil act.
The character really sounds true neutral to me. If she was actively trying to hurt people who she knew were innocent, that would merit an evil alignment. But if she just considers everyone to be a threat due to her upbringing, that does not merit an evil alignment.
*Shrug* She said she had done evil in the past, and she wanted the evil alignment so I said no problem. She is enjoying her "Redemption Story".
I have no problem with a character having defining moments in his/her past that occurred off screen. It is also OK in my opinion to later overcome this past and grow into a completely different person.
|
well poo buckets. i missed the whole 'redemption' angle. Rufus' question holds weight with me.
How could any paladin ever help an evil character redeem themselves if they weren't allowed to associate with them?
Return of the Jedi wouldn't be the same if Anakin didn't die in Luke's arms, right? (think of Luke as the paladin in this case)
Just as importantly, what faith is the Paladin?
Sarenrae or Shelyn would not cause a Paladin to fall if their example is causing the conversion of a person. If the paladin's god is one of hope or redemption, there should be no problem.
Other gods may send a warning about the evil barbarian, but then you would fall into the case of working with evil when it is worthwhile -- saving a soul by redeeming it certainly should be worthwhile. In that case, have a cleric of the paladin's faith stop by periodically to get a report and give an atonement.
Just as importantly, what faith is the Paladin?
Sarenrae or Shelyn would not cause a Paladin to fall if their example is causing the conversion of a person. If the paladin's god is one of hope or redemption, there should be no problem.
Other gods may send a warning about the evil barbarian, but then you would fall into the case of working with evil when it is worthwhile -- saving a soul by redeeming it certainly should be worthwhile. In that case, have a cleric of the paladin's faith stop by periodically to get a report and give an atonement.
The paladin worships a LE god named Nh'resh. She is the goddess of Honor, Love and Night.
She used to be the LG goddess of Honor, Magic, and Law but she changed due to events in the world long ago. She retained her ability to call paladins due to the fact that she is only evil because of the fact that she made a promise to defend the empire of her beloved at any cost, as long as it remains a place where good men dwell.
If you can worship an evil deity as a paladin, teaming up with a NE'ish barbarian doesn't seem like a big deal anymore.
Problem solved :)
|
You're also using a homebrew archetype designed around a paladin who associates closely with evil (an artifact) and should logically have a looser associations clause, like that of the Redeemer archetype:
Associates: A redeemer may ally with an evil creature as long as she feels the creature is capable of redemption. A redeemer may accept henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are not lawful good provided they demonstrate they are willing to follow her and seek betterment under her tutelage.
If you've already home-brewed the paladin enough that the official or consensus paladin (if there is such a thing) doesn't apply, and everyone's having fun at-table, why take this to the forums?
You're also using a homebrew archetype designed around a paladin who associates closely with evil (an artifact) and should logically have a looser associations clause, like that of the Redeemer archetype:
Associates: A redeemer may ally with an evil creature as long as she feels the creature is capable of redemption. A redeemer may accept henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are not lawful good provided they demonstrate they are willing to follow her and seek betterment under her tutelage.If you've already home-brewed the paladin enough that the official or consensus paladin (if there is such a thing) doesn't apply, and everyone's having fun at-table, why take this to the forums?
I just enjoy hearing other people's opinions.
I have very much enjoyed this thread and the people who have given my their thoughts.
I was not looking for a specific answer I just wanted to see what people thought.
Edit: Thank you for the redeemer quote though, I may adopt that or something close.
|
|
Then this should probably be in General Discussion to make it clear that you're not actually looking for the RAW answer or for advice.
Personally I use a "due diligence" standard when dealing with paladins or other classes with conduct requirements. You don't fall for unknowingly breaking your code of conduct as long as you make a reasonable effort to ensure that you are not breaking your code of conduct. So no conveniently leaving the room whenever the party interrogates a prisoner and claiming you didn't know about the torture, but if someone doesn't detect as evil and doesn't do anything evil (or is very sneaky about it) you are fine.
You can't be held responsible for information you have no way of acquiring.
Frankly, the Redeemer code should be the default.
Well, as other people have said: I think the paladin is in the clear, so long as he doesn't know the barbarian is evil. It even sounds like the barbarian is becoming less evil. It might do more harm than good for the paladin to abandon her on her path to redemption.
Also, I really like this paladin archetype you designed. It's neat and opens up lots of fun roleplay possibilities!
I'm a bit surprised you don't gain proficiency with the Dread Burden, though I suppose that kind of balances things out. A feat for proficiency is a small price to pay for a weapon that grows with you.
|
|
I'm a bit surprised you don't gain proficiency with the Dread Burden, though I suppose that kind of balances things out. A feat for proficiency is a small price to pay for a weapon that grows with you.
You only have to pay a feat if you want the Burden to be an exotic weapon - the archetype is still proficient with all simple and martial weapons.
Well, as other people have said: I think the paladin is in the clear, so long as he doesn't know the barbarian is evil. It even sounds like the barbarian is becoming less evil. It might do more harm than good for the paladin to abandon her on her path to redemption.
I will agree with some many others who said this.
If the paladin cant detect who is evil and who isnt , then he/she must judge the PCs actions to guide him/herself.
If this PC like you said mostly just acts neutral/good , then to the paladin they probably appear neutral/good.
Unless this barb for some reason tricks the paladin in doing evil (which can happen since the paladin believes/trusts in her and she is evil in the end) , then ic no reason to even consider taking the powers away from the paladin.
If the paladin ends up helping the barbarian kill 200 kids even if he/she didnt know he/she was helping , then yes , his/her powers should be contested.
Paladins are not restricted to not adventuring with evil party members, and doing so will not cause them to fall.
As long as the Paladin does not abide by an evil ally commiting evil, they are not breaking any part of the Code of Conduct.
